For some stakeholders such as NGOs or environmental activist groups, the picture is crystal clear. They want investors to divest from companies and whole industries that threaten the future of our planet, and move their money towards climate-positive sectors. The time for talking, they argue, is over, because change is happening too slowly if at all.
For asset managers, however, the picture is complex. The question is not: to divest or not to divest. The question is: at what point does an unsuccessful engagement result in divestment? Our core belief is that by engaging with companies – fossil fuel companies, petrochemical companies and the like – asset managers can help steer them towards a more sustainable future, whereas if you divest from those companies, you lose any kind of say in the matter and other shareholders who care less about sustainability will jump in and take your place.
It’s a thin line indeed, especially for Peter van der Werf, senior manager engagement, and Nick Spooner, climate change engagement specialist, as they also have to handle client demands and cooperate with investment teams. In November 2021, they introduced the Acceleration to Paris program (see textbox).
Spooner: “There's certainly a need for both engagement and divestment. And this is what we're trying to bring through in our Acceleration to Paris program. We want to avoid the false dichotomy of engagement and divestment, and instead ask the question: how do you use these tools together?” In contrast to NGOs and activist groups, an asset manager engaging with companies is, by the nature of the industry, both trying to change the world for the better – and meet a clear financial objective.
So, how does engagement start? First of all, it’s important to realize that there are basically two types of engagement at Robeco, says Van der Werf. “Most of our engagement is what we call value engagement, where the engagement specialists try to add value to the investment approach by either reducing sustainability risk at companies and therefore reducing risk of the securities in portfolio, or by capturing more information that leads us to better-assessed investment decisions.”
“In some cases, engagement lays bare issues that the financial analyst hadn't incorporated, so that might affect their view,” Van der Werf explains. “When we close a value engagement case unsuccessfully, the portfolio managers review our conclusions and evaluate this negative signal in their ESG integration process. However, this is one of many factors that play a role in the decision of the portfolio manager to hold, buy or sell the position. The majority of our engagement program is scoped in that way.”
But there’s also another type of engagement, enhanced engagement. And that's where there is a consequence if it’s unsuccessful. Van der Werf: “For the majority of the last sixteen years our team has done engagement that was mainly connected to global controversies, breaches of the UN Global Compact or OECD guidelines. More recently, we have expanded that scope, for instance, to palm oil, where we’ve identified a higher risk of companies not meeting our minimum standards on sustainability. So, we've made meeting our explicit minimum standards consequential to engagement. And now we have added climate as our latest topic where we have connected specific consequences to companies not meeting our enhanced engagement objectives.”
The number of stakeholders pushing for change is increasing, with regulatory powers being the main driving force. Does this help engagement processes, or does it cause conflicts, because some stakeholders want to move faster than others?
Spooner: “I think across the asset owner and asset manager landscape, there has been an increasing focus on stewardship activities over the last three years. Partly, this is indeed driven by progress from a regulatory perspective, with the Shareholder Rights Directive within the EU and stewardship code in the UK as well. And we do see those markets where stewardship codes are available to be more stringent in terms of the practices of asset managers and asset owners.”
“We try to educate and bring the quality of engagement across the investor universe to a higher level. Because as more asset managers and asset owners enter the market, there's a lot of organizations that don't have the history and experience that Robeco has. And so by being able to work collaboratively with these investors, we can improve the quality of engagement and challenge the status quo around engagement activities by being innovative and advancing new practices within the engagement sphere.”
Having more stakeholders also helps to address environmental and social issues, Spooner thinks. “That is only going to be a good thing. We do learn a lot from working with them and these perspectives can be really helpful in terms of understanding and building our own views as well. We benefit a lot from the research that NGOs do. We also benefit from the regulatory development as well. So I think that pluralism is really important, also in achieving net zero in 2050. Clearly, there are sometimes tensions between the ambitions and goals of the NGO community and the investment community. Those need to be worked out. I think it is not a tension around what our ultimate outcome is. It's just a tension around what is the means or what is the journey in terms of how we get to that end goal.”
Spooner says the engagement versus divestment question is a good example of the potential tension in terms of the methods that investors want to deploy versus what NGOs want. And this is due to an oversimplification around what needs to be done to get to net zero. The transition isn't going to happen overnight and divesting doesn't necessarily have a large-scale impact on the actions of oil and gas companies.
“We can have the greatest real-world impact through our engagement activities. And we do have a duty to do that engagement and to drive these real-world outcomes. We are among a small set of investors currently doing this sort of time-bound engagement but it ought to be the norm. So the debate should be: how do we create more conditions and accountability around our engagement to achieve the outcomes that we want to achieve?”
“And so the pressure that has been coming from the NGOs on investors to divest, has both pressured companies to make these conditions, and also has increased the quality and stringency of the engagement activities as well. I don't think we would see as active a stewardship community without some of the pressure that's been coming from the NGOs to divest as well.”
The fossil fuel industry is undoubtedly the most prominent example of that, with a number of big Dutch pension schemes deciding to divest in the past year. Robeco has decided to stick to its guns and continue engagement with the industry. Van der Werf follows the debate carefully. “It's a very lively debate among asset owners. And the decision to divest was a response to the pressure from their pension fund beneficiaries, which were informed and mobilized by pressure groups and NGOs for some years already, calling upon the pension fund boards to make these type of decisions as their preferred instrument in decarbonizing portfolios.”
“But obviously those portfolios also are still reliant on the real economy, where that need and demand for energy still exists. So I think those are all very realistic parts of the whole puzzle that every decision-making body needs to assess. As a global asset manager we have a very different group of stakeholders that we are accountable for. I think that it is very clear that for us the way to create real-world impact is by engaging.”
At least to a certain point, because Van der Werf agrees that talking for the sake of talking makes no sense. “We do realize that if you keep on talking for three, four years and you're not seeing any results, then obviously that instrument loses its effectiveness and credibility if you say, ‘We're going to add another five years of talking and maybe by 2030, we'll getting somewhere’. So somewhere you need to draw a line.” And that is precisely the process upon which Robeco is now embarking more clearly, Van der Werf says. “Drawing that line then becomes a restriction in our investment policy. That obviously has implications for a large range of investment strategies.”
This is where Robeco’s recently published Roadmap to Net Zero plays a role. Van der Werf: “This roadmap lays out the long-term strategy for Robeco and shows how engagement plays a role in decarbonizing our portfolios. We have top-down decarbonization targets for Robeco strategies, but there’s also bottom-up objectives based on engagement. We focus our engagement on high carbon-emitting companies that are very important constituents of relevant benchmarks for our investment strategies. We want to continue to be able to invest in these companies if they are able to decarbonize.”
“In the end, it is the ultimate win-win if the majority of our enhanced engagements are successful and we continue to be able to invest in these companies, which will give us the most opportunities to generate alpha while also decarbonizing our portfolios. The risk is that as an asset manager at a certain point in time, some of these companies will disappear from your investment universe because your decarbonization targets do not give you sufficient carbon budget to still hold some of those high carbon-emitting companies. So I think that's why that two-pronged approach will support us over time to maximize the investment opportunities while also achieving our decarbonization goals.”
This tension between maximizing investment opportunities while executing our sustainable investing strategy will continue to build in the future. Spooner: “The first divestment decisions are due to come after two years of engagement. The way in which we've selected companies is based on a formulaic methodology. We work with a traffic light score which is going to be updated over time, so a year or 18 months in advance of that first divestment decision, the portfolio managers will be able to see how well the companies are performing and from a more objective, more quantitative perspective, see whether they meet the criteria for divestment or inclusion over time.”
“This should give the basis for a quite robust discussion between the portfolio managers and the engagement team members.” This decision should be based on facts and risks, not a subjective one, Spooner says. “And this is acting in the best interests of the portfolio managers as well. Because if we're getting to a point where we are going to have to divest a company, these are serious concerns that we have with the management of climate-related risks. And so if we have such severe concerns, we see the potential that that's going to have a negative impact on the share price and on profitability going forward.”
Now, how does the traffic light approach work, in the enhanced engagement program? It’s basically focusing on the worst performers and trying to get them to improve their score. Spooner explains: “We started off with the top 200 emitters based on the Trucost investment universe, looking at the full scope of emissions, not just the emissions that the company has generated themselves, but also throughout the full value chain as well. Most of these companies are active in high-emitting sectors: the petrochemical sector, the chemical sector, steel is highly represented as well. And there is a high degree of oil and gas exposure. And we analyzed that top 200, giving companies a score of one to four.”
The engagement specialists looked at a number of considerations that form our analytical framework: greenhouse gas targets, whether companies have 1.5°C targets, a company's capital expenditure, issues around governance and whether the right frameworks are in place for oversight and management of climate-related risks. To do this, a range of third party datasets such as the Climate Action 100+ benchmark was used, as well as the Transition Pathway Initiative and other third party data providers.
By using this framework, they were able to score companies from one to four, or in traffic light terms: dark green, light green, amber and red. And this methodology was used to select companies for engagement programs where we focus on the worst performing companies. Spooner: “We wrote a letter to all 200 of the companies in January 2022 to inform them of our expectations around managing climate-related risks and their emissions going forward.”
Van der Werf: “So we then look into what the drivers are for companies to move from red to amber and ultimately promote amber to a light green. We want to see them move along that type of trajectory. So we will do a reiteration of the traffic light snapshot every year, to monitor progress over time. In 18 months’ or two years’ time, we should have a clear view in every specific case if a company is about to move from red to amber, or from amber to light green, or perhaps not improved at all.”
Consequences will then follow, Spooner confirms. “Our intention is to develop the methodology and broaden its scope so that we can use it to report on the alignment of our portfolios over time. We initiated this Acceleration to Paris program at the end of last year by sending them a letter informing them that they've been included within our engagement program, why they've been included, and that they're potentially exposed to divestment if we don't see significant progress during the engagement.”
What will such an engagement process look like? Spooner thinks he will be in contact with the companies at least three to four times a year. “Keep in mind that these are companies that potentially aren't directly incentivized to talk to investors about ESG and climate. And so it may take a few attempts knocking on the door to get those initial meetings set up. But within a few weeks we've had positive responses from around half of companies.”
For most of these companies the engagement team has nine objectives in place, ranging from greenhouse gas targets to looking at the climate transition, climate governance and capital expenditure. Spooner: “The main outcomes we want to see are around the management and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement: Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. And for chemical or petrochemical companies those Scope 3 emissions are incredibly important, both with regard to the upstream emissions related to the extraction of oil and gas, but also with regard to the downstream emissions related to waste and recyclability.”
“This would be for instance a chemical company moving towards bio-based materials or the use of hydrogen as a feedstock or within energy generation. So these are large expenditures that these companies are going to have to bear. And so that capex would demonstrate that they are serious about meeting those emissions targets rather than just sort of setting and forgetting them, or setting a net zero target that is going to be a future CEO's responsibility.”
Now, how ambitious are these goals? Will these carbon-intensive industries be able and willing to change in the coming three years? Spooner remains realistic. “Perhaps my hopes and ambitions are very different from what will actually happen. My ambition would be for these companies to become climate leaders as a result of our engagement, but I have to manage my expectations in terms of how much change we could see over a limited period of time, particularly for some of these companies that currently lack a clear awareness around climate risks. I would hope after the first two years, we would see an acceleration, such as we've seen over the past few years in terms of more net zero targets being set.”
Van der Werf: “Active ownership is a long-term game. You don't achieve results overnight, but I think asking the right type of questions persistently and consistently and driving companies in the right direction will help us to show there are real-world outcomes. I hope that the traffic light approach makes progress measurable and quantifiable, and makes it easier for us to show that what we began in 2021 will start to yield results in 2024 and beyond.”
Spooner adds: “Divestment is typically the tool we have in our toolbox as investors, but which we don’t want to use. So we want to use up all the other tools before we let go of our ability to exercise our shareholder rights to effect change as shareholders when we divest. And so part of this enhanced engagement is to use those tools quite actively to drive change at these companies.”
This information is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as an offer to sell or an invitation to buy any securities or products, nor as investment advice or recommendation.
The contents of this document have not been reviewed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”). Robeco Singapore Private Limited holds a capital markets services license for fund management issued by the MAS and is subject to certain clientele restrictions under such license.
An investment will involve a high degree of risk, and you should consider carefully whether an investment is suitable for you.
Warning/Important note: This website contains information which is only available to qualified investors as defined below. If you are not a qualified investor, please click “I Disagree” to leave the website.
By clicking on "I agree", I declare that:
1 - This website may only be accessed directly or indirectly by the following persons in Singapore:
1) “institutional investor” under section 304 of the Securities and Futures Act (Cap.289)(“SFA”), which means:
(i) the Government; (ii) a statutory board as may be prescribed by regulations made under section 341 of the SFA; (iii) an entity that is wholly and beneficially owned, whether directly or indirectly, by a central government of a country and whose principal activity is (A) to manage its own funds; (B) to manage the funds of the central government of that country (which may include the reserves of that central government and any pension or provident fund of that country); or (C) to manage the funds (which may include the reserves of that central government and any pension or provident fund of that country) of another entity that is wholly and beneficially owned, whether directly or indirectly, by the central government of that country; (iv) any entity (A) that is wholly and beneficially owned, whether directly or indirectly, by the central government of a country; and (B) whose funds are managed by an entity mentioned in sub-paragraph (iii); (v) a central bank in a jurisdiction other than Singapore; (vi) a central government in a country other than Singapore; (vii) an agency (of a central government in a country other than Singapore) that is incorporated or established in a country other than Singapore; (viii) a multilateral agency, international organisation or supranational agency as may be prescribed by regulations made under section 341 of the SFA; (ix) a bank that is licensed under the Banking Act (Cap.19); (x) a merchant bank that is approved as a financial institution under section 28 of the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (Cap.186); (xi) a finance company that is licensed under the Finance Companies Act (Cap.108); (xii) a company or co-operative society that is licensed under the Insurance Act (Cap.142) to carry on insurance business in Singapore; (xiii) a company licensed under the Trust Companies Act (Cap.336); (xiv) a holder of a capital markets services licence; (xv) an approved exchange; (xvi) a recognised market operator; (xvii) an approved clearing house; (xviii) a recognised clearing house; (xix) a licensed trade repository; (xx) a licensed foreign trade repository; (xxi) an approved holding company; (xxii) a Depository as defined in section 81SF of the SFA; (xxiii) an entity or a trust formed or incorporated in a jurisdiction other than Singapore, which is regulated for the carrying on of any financial activity in that jurisdiction by a public authority of that jurisdiction that exercises a function that corresponds to a regulatory function of the Authority under this Act, the Banking Act (Cap.19), the Finance Companies Act (Cap.108), the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (Cap.186), the Insurance Act (Cap.142), the Trust Companies Act (Cap.336) or such other Act as may be prescribed by regulations made under section 341 of the SFA; (xxiv) a pension fund, or collective investment scheme, whether constituted in Singapore or elsewhere; (xxv) a person (other than an individual) who carries on the business of dealing in bonds with accredited investors or expert investors; (xxvi) the trustee of such trust as the Authority may prescribe, when acting in that capacity; or; (xxvii) such other person as the Authority may prescribe.
2) “relevant person” under section 305(1) of the SFA, which means:
(i) An accredited investor; (ii) a corporation the sole business of which is to hold investments and the entire share capital of which is owned by one or more individuals, each of whom is an accredited investor; (iii) a trustee of a trust the sole purpose of which is to hold investments and each beneficiary of which is an individual who is an accredited investor; (iv) an officer or equivalent person of the person making the offer (such person being an entity) or a spouse, parent, brother, sister, son or daughter of that officer or equivalent person; or (v) a spouse, parent, brother, sister, son or daughter of the person making the offer (such person being an individual).
3) any person who acquires the units [in a collective investment scheme] as principal if the offer is on terms that the units may only be required at a consideration of not less than $200,000 (or its equivalent in a foreign currency) for each transaction, whether such amount is to be paid for in cash or by exchange of units in a collective investment scheme, securities, securities-based derivatives contracts or other assets, and if the following condition is satisfied: (i) the offer is not accompanied by an advertisement making an offer or calling attention to the offer or intended offer; (ii) no selling or promotional expenses are paid or incurred in connection with the offer other than those incurred for administrative or professional services, or by way of commission or fee for services rendered by any of the persons specified in section 302B(1)(d)(i) to (vi) of the SFA; and (iii) no prospectus in respect of the offer has been registered by the Authority or, where a prospectus has been registered (A) the prospectus has eAccxpired pursuant to section 299 of the SFA; or (B) the person making the offer has before making the offer 1. informed the Authority by notice in writing of its intent to make the offer in reliance on the exemption under this subsection; and 2. taken reasonable steps to inform in writing the person to whom the offer is made that the offer is made in reliance on the exemption under this subsection.
4) Or otherwise pursuant to, and in accordance with the conditions of, any other applicable provision of the SFA.
If you are not any of the types of persons described above, you are not authorized to enter this website and you should leave this website immediately.
2 Terms and Conditions
You acknowledge that you have read these Terms and Conditions (“Terms”) prior to accessing the website located at www.robeco.com/sg (“Website”) and you agree to be bound by the Terms. If you do not agree to all of the Terms, you are not an authorised user and you should not use the Website. The Website is owned by Robeco Singapore Private Limited (company registration number: UEN. 201541306Z), which is licensed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) pursuant to the Securities and Futures Act (Cap.289) (“SFA”) of Singapore, and is managed by Robeco Singapore Private Limited and/or its affiliates (collectively, as “Robeco”). The Website is intended for and should be accessed by institutional investors or accredited investors (as defined under Section 4A of the SFA) of Singapore. The Website is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in any locality, state, country or other jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or which would subject the Robeco to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction. It is your responsibility to observe all applicable laws, rules and regulations of any relevant jurisdiction. The content contained in the Website is owned by Robeco and/or its information providers and is protected by applicable copyrights, trademarks, service marks, and/or other intellectual property rights. You may not copy, distribute, modify, post, frame or link the Website, including any text, graphics, video, audio, software code, user interface, design or logos. You may not distribute, modify, transmit, reuse, repost, or use the content of the Website for public or commercial use, including all text, images, audio and/or video. Robeco may terminate your access to the Website for any reason, without prior notice. Neither Robeco, nor any of its associates, nor any director, officer or employee accepts any liability whatsoever for any loss arising directly or indirectly from the access of the Website. You agree to indemnity and hold Robeco, its associates, directors, officers or employees harmless against any and all claims, losses, liability, costs and expenses arising from your use of the Website due to violation of the Terms. Robeco reserves the right to change, modify, add or remove any parts of the Terms at any time and for any reason. The Terms shall deemed to be effective immediately upon posting. The Terms shall be governed by, and shall be construed in accordance with, the law of Singapore.
The Website has not been reviewed by the MAS. Accordingly, the Website may not be accessed directly or indirectly to persons in Singapore other than (i) to an institutional investor under Section 304 of the SFA, (ii) to a relevant person pursuant to Section 305(1), or any person pursuant to Section 305(2), and in accordance with the conditions specified in Section 305, of the SFA, or (iii) otherwise pursuant to, and in accordance with the conditions of, any other applicable provision of the SFA.
Nothing in the Website constitutes tax, accounting, regulatory, legal or investment advice. The Website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as an offer to sell or an invitation to buy any securities or products, nor as investment advice or recommendation or for the purpose of soliciting any action in relation to Robeco’s businesses, or solicitation by anyone in any jurisdiction in which such an offer or solicitation is not authorised or to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such an offer and solicitation. Any reproduction or distribution of information from the Website, in whole or in part, or the disclosure of its contents, without the prior written consent of Robeco, is prohibited. By accessing to the Website, you agree to the foregoing.
The funds referred to in the Website are for information only. It is not a recommendation or investment advice, nor does it mean the funds is suitable for all investors. The contents of the website is not reviewed by the MAS. Any decision to participate in the funds should be made only after reviewing the sections regarding investment considerations, conflicts of interest, risk factors and the relevant Singapore selling restrictions. You should consult your professional adviser if you are in doubt about the stringent restrictions applicable to the use of the Website, regulatory status of the funds, applicable regulatory protection, associated risks and suitability of the funds to your objectives.
Any decisions made based on the information contained in the Website are the sole responsibility of yours. Any investments made or to be made shall be with your independent analyses based on your financial situation and objectives. The investments and strategies contained in the Website may not be suitable for all investors and are not guaranteed by Robeco.
Investment involves risks and may lose value. Historical returns are provided for illustrative purposes only and do not necessarily reflect Robeco’s expectations for the future. The value of your investments may fluctuate. Past performance is no indication of current or future performance. The Website may contain projections or other forward looking statements regarding future events or future financial performance of countries, markets or companies and such projection or forecast is not indicative of the future. The information contained in the Website, including any data, projections and underlying assumptions are based upon certain assumptions, management forecasts and analysis of information available on an “as is” basis and without warranties of any kind, whether express or implied, and reflects prevailing conditions and Robeco’s views as of the date published or indicated, and maybe superseded by subsequent events or for other reasons. The information contained in the Website are accordingly subject to change at any time without notice and Robeco are under no obligation to notify you of any of these changes. Robeco expressly disclaims all liability for errors and omissions in the information presented in the Website and for the use or interpretation by others of information contained in the Website.
Robeco Singapore Private Limited holds a capital markets services licence for fund management issued by the MAS and is subject to certain clientele restrictions under such licence. An investment will involve a high degree of risk, and you should consider carefully whether an investment is suitable for you.